I'd say that this is GM's best effort yet for a sports sedan. I notice that there are lot of people considering the GTR, IS-F, RS4, etc. All very good cars, but you HAVE to put the CTS-V in that group as well. In terms of size, the CTS-V competes with the M5, but pricing-wise, it is far cheaper, and competes with the M3.

.. AND .. the fact that the astonishing upcoming CTS Coupe with the V-treatment will be out within a year's time is just icing on the cake!

Very, very impressive, especially at that price point. Even the styling is growing on me. The interior looks nice, but a bit cluttered. Call me crazy, but I've always liked BMW's simple, spartan interiors.

The last generation CTS-V was a terribly built rattle-trap that was just about worthless after the warranty ran out. Depending on its execution, this new one looks to be a big step up.

Yeah, but you get a lot more than a lot of engine. If those ring times are accurate, the coupe version might just spank our beloved //Ms......

__________________

"...it's not about the money and not about the brand of the car, it's about handling,performance and passion......And that, no other car has all together like an M3........when you talk about the most complete car the M is invincible." --Tony Kanaan.

The interior design looks fine but the exterior is awful, what is all this angular look all about.

Beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but in my opinion, these cars look very good indeed in the flesh (coupe seen only at an auto show).

Quote:

Originally Posted by footie

Also, whith this amount of power and torque the time isn't that special when taking into context against what BMW have achieved with the M3.

With due respect, this is a little more apples and oranges than if you compared the CTS-V with, say, the M5. The CTS-V is in fact a bit larger than the M5, and heavier as well. Of course, we don't have an M5 'Ring time, but based on the M6 times, we can probably extrapolate to an 8:09 or 8:10. Even against the M6 in a track environment, the Cadillac perhaps shows up even a little better. Impressive indeed.

Bruce

Edit: PS - That 8:05 M3 time was also done with motorsports pads and super-sticky rubber. U.S cars come only with standard pads and PS2s. You and I disagree on the value of gummy rubber, but I think we can agree that a "standard" M3 will be several seconds slower at the 'Ring under the same conditions.

With due respect, this is a little more apples and oranges than if you compared the CTS-V with, say, the M5. The CTS-V is in fact a bit larger than the M5, and heavier as well. Of course, we don't have an M5 'Ring time, but based on the M6 times, we can probably extrapolate to an 8:09 or 8:10. Even against the M6 in a track environment, the Cadillac perhaps shows up even a little better. Impressive indeed.

Bruce

Edit: PS - That 8:05 M3 time was also done with motorsports pads and super-sticky rubber. U.S cars come only with standard pads and PS2s. You and I disagree on the value of gummy rubber, but I think we can agree that a "standard" M3 will be several seconds slower at the 'Ring under the same conditions.

I didn't realise the size of the Caddy, I am unfamiliar with your home-grow material and thought it was slightly bigger than the 3 series, not bigger than the 5 series as well. The M5's time with SportAuto is 8:13, but you have to remember that the Caddy's time was conducted with their test drivers on board and not a magazine driver, as an example of what difference that can make the RS4 in the hands of Audi recorded a time of 7:56, not the 8:09 that SA got.

The rubber argument is a can of worms which is best left closed, suffice to say that it will account for 3~5 seconds but little more. But lets look at the M5's time, it was recorded on PS2 rubber, the M6 was on r-compound and it saved 4 seconds, as for the pads, I can't say if they will improve it's braking performance but it will improve it's durability. The M5 was rumoured to have lapped the ring in under 8 minutes in a BMW test driver's hands, that's a full 13 seconds quicker than it's SA time but there was never an confirmation of this and maybe that is why this time for the Caddy is so talked about. Now if you estimate that you may need to add approx 13 seconds to the CTS's time then you end up with 8:12, better than the M5 but not so amazing considering the power.

But if you look at it purely on price then what they have achieved it as amazing as what Nissan have done with the GTR.

I didn't realise the size of the Caddy, I am unfamiliar with your home-grow material and thought it was slightly bigger than the 3 series, not bigger than the 5 series as well. The M5's time with SportAuto is 8:13, but you have to remember that the Caddy's time was conducted with their test drivers on board and not a magazine driver, as an example of what difference that can make the RS4 in the hands of Audi recorded a time of 7:56, not the 8:09 that SA got.

The rubber argument is a can of worms which is best left closed, suffice to say that it will account for 3~5 seconds but little more. But lets look at the M5's time, it was recorded on PS2 rubber, the M6 was on r-compound and it saved 4 seconds, as for the pads, I can't say if they will improve it's braking performance but it will improve it's durability. The M5 was rumoured to have lapped the ring in under 8 minutes in a BMW test driver's hands, that's a full 13 seconds quicker than it's SA time but there was never an confirmation of this and maybe that is why this time for the Caddy is so talked about. Now if you estimate that you may need to add approx 13 seconds to the CTS's time then you end up with 8:12, better than the M5 but not so amazing considering the power.

But if you look at it purely on price then what they have achieved it as amazing as what Nissan have done with the GTR.

While this is a good car for Caddy (and the RS6), it is aiming at a 4 year old target. ///M has traditionally set the bar and will hopefully do so again in a couple of years with the F10 M5 / F12 M6 then it will be another 5 years until the new RS6 and Caddy.....

__________________

"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari

...But if you look at it purely on price then what they have achieved it as amazing as what Nissan have done with the GTR.

footie, forget price. The CTS-V is clearly competitive with all of the current M cars - and perhaps more than competitive. Slightly faster than any of the Ms in a straight line, and it appears to be at least slightly faster at the 'Ring, as well.

So what if it's bigger, weighs more and makes more power. It is what it is, and it's pretty damned good.

Your "suffice it to say" comment in regard to gummy rubber can easily be offset by a similar "suffice it to say" comment from me to the tune of 7 - 8 seconds, but at least we can agree that the M3 time would probably not match the Cadillac's time assuming the bimmer had an assassin on board, equipped with PS2s and standard pads. After all, check out the 911 difference of six seconds (7:59 to 8:05) Rohrl to SportAuto, similarly equipped.

No matter what, we're talking four cars that have similar performance, which is pretty much an astounding feat for the Cadillac.

I am commending Caddy's achievements. To break the 8 minute barrier regardless of who is driving is incredible, but until SportAuto do their test we can only assume that it will be quicker than an M5, M6 or M3.

The other thing which is unknown is what the ride quality is like, making a car handle isn't the difficult part, making it handle and ride great is a different matter, few get it right, Mercedes, BMW and Audi to name a few. If this car gets test by SA, beats any of these BMWs and proves to ride as well as them then we can say for certain that Cadillac have produced a truly amazing machine.

P.S.
Keep the lip firmly in place on those worms old mate, things at the moment are peachy and we want it to stay that way.

I am commending Caddy's achievements. To break the 8 minute barrier regardless of who is driving is incredible, but until SportAuto do their test we can only assume that it will be quicker than an M5, M6 or M3.

The other thing which is unknown is what the ride quality is like, making a car handle isn't the difficult part, making it handle and ride great is a different matter, few get it right, Mercedes, BMW and Audi to name a few. If this car gets test by SA, beats any of these BMWs and proves to ride as well as them then we can say for certain that Cadillac have produced a truly amazing machine.

P.S.
Keep the lip firmly in place on those worms old mate, things at the moment are peachy and we want it to stay that way.

How is Sport Auto going to find one to test? I believe the new CTS-V is not being sold overseas, it is staying stateside. I guess if they really wanted to, they could get one over there.